SwingDJs

yedancer wrote:My only concern would be offending someone by playing it.

I know here in Melbourne that if 2 dancers in the room connected the song they are hearing with Eddie Reed and then with the incident, I would be very surprised. It may be different in the US.

Brian

Yakov wrote:i have a friend who refuses to like any artist who did drugs, because they "cheated". needless to say this guy isn't really my friend.

Sounds like why a lot of people I went to high school with only listened to Christian music. I take it this guy you know isn't a Swing DJ, because I don't know what he would play if he were.

Bob the Builder wrote:

yedancer wrote:My only concern would be offending someone by playing it.

I know here in Melbourne that if 2 dancers in the room connected the song they are hearing with Eddie Reed and then with the incident, I would be very surprised. It may be different in the US.

Brian

Eddie Reed is a local artist in Southern California. So, a lot more dancers would make the connection in Jeremy's scene.

The only people who know who Eddie Reed is in Texas are probably the DJs and a handful of dancers who spent time in California.

I will never play any Eddie Reed music in LA ever again. There are too many people who know the situation and, like me, think that he is a disgusting human being who does not deserve to be heard of ever again.

I will not honor him by playing his music. PERIOD.


Similar to the fact that I will never acknowledge Mo Jones of the guy from Santa Clara (Rob something). What they did in inexcuasable and disgusting.

By playing their music you are saying that the value of his music is far greater than the crimes he commited. AND (from what i remember) wasn't it his daughter that he molested? SICK MAN, VERY SICK MAN

No, I'm saying that his music is independent of the crimes he committed.

And I'm not honoring him by playing his music, honor has nothing to do with it. I'm just playing music to entertain dancers.

What if you find out that Artie Shaw was convicted for rape, for example, (and I'm just making this up) would you stop playing him? What if one of his band members was, should we stop playing his music? Should we do research on every artist we play to ensure we don't play music by "bad" people? And what is "bad", is it just child molesters, or does it include rapists, murderers, maybe all felons? Should we only boycott musicians that are still alive and benefiting from album sales? What if we found out the money they might get in increased sales goes partly to the victim? (and I'm just making that up, too.) From an ethical point of view, I'm not sure things are clear-cut.

Its pretty sick to molest children, I'll certainly agree on that. So I shouldn't have been surprised that people would not want to play him. Despite my argument, I doubt I'll play him either.

It's different when the person in question is very well known, especially in a certain area.

Ron wrote:No, I'm saying that his music is independent of the crimes he committed.

Art without context is meaningless. Sure, you could study art and gain a limited appreciation of it, but until you understand the artist's biography, the political climate of the time, etc., you won't truly understand everything that went into it. For example, how could you truly understand and appreciate jazz without understanding the influences that slavery had on its creation?

In the world of theater nowadays, you learn method acting, where you draw upon your own experiences, emotions, history to create a compelling vision on stage. Your history, who you are, is an essential part of your art. And that seems to go for all art ... Van Gogh's mental illness colored his work, F. Scott Fitzgerald's constant benders and depression show up in "The Great Gatsby."

I think it's sad, but this dark streak tends to turn up in a lot of artists. The crimes Reed committed represent a part of his personality and inevitably, part of who he is an artist. I think, though, Faulkner says it more strongly (and a helluva lot darker):

William Faulkner wrote:An artist is a creature driven by demons. He don't know why they choose him and he's usually too busy to wonder why. He is completely amoral in that he will rob, borrow, beg or steal from anybody and everybody to get the work done.

Those of you who won't play him, hen he has served his time are you still not going to air his material?
If you look back in to the history of jazz it is quite amazing the amount of jazz musicians that got on the wrong side of the law to varying extremes.
Some were involved in drug use, alcohol abuse with violent behavior, prostration, theft, gambling and I'm sure if you really looked into it, many more serious crimes. Are you going to stop playing 30% of the current aired musicians now because of that?

Brian

Bob the Builder wrote:Those of you who won't play him, hen he has served his time are you still not going to air his material?
If you look back in to the history of jazz it is quite amazing the amount of jazz musicians that got on the wrong side of the law to varying extremes.
Some were involved in drug use, alcohol abuse with violent behavior, prostration, theft, gambling and I'm sure if you really looked into it, many more serious crimes. Are you going to stop playing 30% of the current aired musicians now because of that?

Brian

There is a certain stigma that is associated with child molesters. Comparing child molesters to gamblers, thiefs, drug abusers, etc... is like comparing apples to oranges. I imagine that if somebody could show that a band leader from the 30s and 40s was a child molester, he would get dropped by a few DJs.

Michael Jackson is going to be a good test for society as a whole on this issue. Right now, a lot of people are waiting till the trail, which I think is fair. But, if he is convicted, how will the radio stations, MTV, etc... handle the question. Will be burn his records?

My take on Michael Jackson is that I can see how he got to be more twisted over the years. Should the Michael Jackson music of the 1960s and 70s disappear due to the acts of the weird man-child he became in the 1990s (or the 1980s if you want to look at it that way).

Nathan

Nate Dogg wrote:There is a certain stigma that is associated with child molesters. Comparing child molesters to gamblers, thiefs, drug abusers, etc... is like comparing apples to oranges.

Even in prison there is a stigma associated with child molesters. They rank socially on the bottom of the prison totem pole and are much more likely to end up being beaten, raped and killed while behind bars.

Yeah, Jazz history is loaded with criminals and criminal acts. I do not expect my celebrities to be flawless but I do expect them not to **** children.

Kalman

/agree Mouse